From: Sarah Van Keuren (svk@steuber.com)
Date: 05/06/00-08:35:24 AM Z
Judy, as you know, gum bichromate is my favorite medium also, but I wonder
about its ability to render fine detail in the explicit way that some
photographers desire. The fact that the image is comprised of bits of
pigment that are huge compared to the atoms or molecules that comprise
palladium or vandyke would make me think otherwise. Also, while YOU may be
able to make a satisfactory gum print in one layer, I need at least two
layers and usually 3, 4 or 5. This makes the issue of registration or slight
lack of thereof significant.
The layered glazes that comprise gum prints are like amber strata containing
different pigments. Depending on the angle of viewing it seems possible that
sharpness could subtly change. This gives a depth of detail that to me is
more satisfying that finer surface rendition. What really attracts me to
gum, however, is the sense of sculptural volume and atmosphere that is
possible with it.
Sarah Van Keuren
Judy Seigel wrote to Ken Carney on 5/6/00:
> I have recently seen two more books on gum, which I would NOT recommend
> (for reasons large & small). If however, you feel like buying a book (they
> are dandy to have around the house), I haven't fully parsed it yet (how
> can I parse anything if I don't get off email?), but the Spirits of Salts
> gum chapter is good reading & the color reproductions run the gamut of
> gum's talents.
>
> True, it does say some things I am forced by a higher power to take issue
> with (ie., "liquid glue" instead of gum arabic, ammonium dichromate to be
> "avoided" for reasons not specified, etc.) but the mindset, or *attitude*
> seems to me to hit just the right note. And for this paragraph I would
> forgive far worse sins than those cited above:
>
> =========QUOTE Spirits of Salts ==============
>
> ...Contrary to received opinion, gum prints can be made to resolve fine,
> sharp detail. A gum print made by contact from a 10x8" negative shows as
> much detail as any other type of printing method. The misapprehension that
> gum prints have always to be fuzzy stems from multiple printing. The lack
> of accurate registration on each subsequent coating and printing gives the
> appearance of unsharpness....
>
> UNQUOTE==============
>
> I've never seen that in print by anyone except myself. In fact the
> boilerplate "gum can't do fine detail" attaches like a barnacle to almost
> every mention of the medium. Or has to date. I understand that
> Photographers' Formulary is revising the advisory that accompanies its
> "gum kit," which is also being revised, so perhaps one source of that
> canard will enter oblivion. The subject of "gum kit," however is something
> else. I see that as a false promise, in the name of *ease* ultimately
> hobbling the beginner... And hardly an economy. But that's another topic
> altogether, isn't it?
>
> cheers,
>
> Judy
>
> .................................................................
> | Judy Seigel, Editor >
> | World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
> | info@post-factory.org >
> | <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
> .................................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 06/13/00-03:10:17 PM Z CST